LiDAR vs. Photogrammetry
A practical comparison for mapping deliverables—especially for construction, mining & aggregates, and survey workflows.
| Category | LiDAR | Photogrammetry |
|---|---|---|
| How it works | Laser pulses directly measure distance to surfaces | Overlapping photos reconstructed into 3D using image matching |
| Vegetation performance | ✅ Best-in-class Penetrates vegetation and supports bare-earth models | ❌ Limited Cannot see through trees; captures canopy surface |
| Bare-earth accuracy | Excellent—ideal for topographic and engineering workflows | Limited in vegetated areas; strong only on open ground |
| Surface detail (structures) | Very good geometric detail | Excellent visual + texture detail |
| Color / imagery | Typically intensity-based (RGB possible with additional sensors) | True high-resolution RGB imagery |
| Stockpile volumes | Excellent | Excellent |
| Forested topographic mapping | ✅ Recommended Produces ground points under vegetation | ❌ Not recommended |
| Grading & drainage design | Strong choice, especially when vegetation is present | Strong only for non-vegetated sites |
| Processing workflow | Classification-focused (ground, vegetation, structures) | Compute-heavy reconstruction (dense matching + stitching) |
| Lighting dependency | Minimal (not reliant on sun/texture) | Higher—needs consistent lighting and surface texture |
| Typical outputs | LAS/LAZ point cloud, classified ground, DTM/DEM, contours | Orthomosaic, DSM, dense point cloud, 3D mesh |
| Cost profile | Higher (sensor + workflow) | Lower (camera-based capture) |
| Best fit | Survey-grade topo, wooded sites, engineering design | Construction documentation, open sites, visual mapping |
Practical rule of thumb: If the site has meaningful vegetation and the map will drive engineering decisions,
LiDAR is usually the responsible choice. If the site is open and you want high-resolution visual context, photogrammetry is a great fit.